Why the WARIOBA COMMISSION has failed the nation in many ways!


Bungeni tunasema kijinsia nusu kwa nusu sasa mahakamani mbona jinsia ni kimya? Huu ni ubaguzi wa kijinsia ulio wazi ila unaendeshwa kimyakimya.

Pili kuna uhaja wa kuweka ukomo wa idadi ya majaji ili kuzuia kuwa na ajira za shukrani.

USHAURI: Idadi ya Majaji tajwa wasipungue 20 na wasizidi 40.
 

Suala la umri halina ubavu hapa kama kuna kijana alimaliza shahada yake akiwa na miaka 23 kwa mfano na ana utumishi tajwa usiopungua miaka 10 hivyo yeye sasa ni 33 kwanini asifikiriwe wakati sifa nyinginezo anazo?

Umri unatumika kubagua na kuchelewesha wenye vipaji maalumu kupadna ngazi haraka.

Jingine hakuna suala la usiri kwenye teusi hizi ila ni kwenye vyombo vya habari na wenye sifa zote wahahamasishwe wajitokeze badala ya wajumbe wa tume kuangalia marafiki na mahawara zao tu bila ya kujali utendaji wao ukoje na umma unawaonaje!
 

teuzi hizi zizingatie uwazi, ushindani, uwakilishi wa kijinsia na ushirikishi wa umma katika vetting process kupitia bunge.
 

Tatizo la ajira za milele ni kuwa hakuna uwajibikaji. Jaji anajua mpaka aundiwe tume ni lini na wakumshauri Raisi kuunda tume ni maswahiba wake ambao wengineo kasoma nao.

utumishi wa umma lazima uwe una ukomo wa pamoja na hakuna upendeleo. Hizi kazi ziwe za mikataba ili kupata wasaa wa kupima kama ipo tija ya kuendelea na huyo msahiliwa.

Suala la miaka 70 ni kulinda ugali lakini hakuna sababu ya maana hasa ukizingatia tuna vijana wengi ambao hawana ajira na sifa wanazo au wangelikuwa nazo ila wanazibiwa nafasi na ajira za milele ambazo ni za kufahamiana na hazina ushindani.
 

Utaratibu wa kutungiwa sheria na bunge unapaswa kuwekewa maangalizi kama ushiriki wa umma katika zoezi hilo, uwazi katika uhakiki wake ikiwa ni pamoja na kuwahitaji wananchi kujulishwa kupitia vyombo vya khabari kupeleka taarifa kuhusiana na suala husika au masuala yoyote yale yanayogusa mwenendo wa majaji waliomo madarakani.

Ajira za majaji pia zipitiwe na Bunge baada ya Raisi kuwateua kufuatana na utaratibu ambao ni shirikishi kama nilivyoainisha hapo awali.
 

utaratibu tajwa wa kueua kiongozi huu uwe wa wazi na shirikishi kwa maana ya uwajibikaji kama nilivyoanisha hapo awali kwenye nafasi za majaji. Tuache ubabaishaji katika karne ya 21!
 

nafasi hizi zitangazwe kama nilivyoshauri awali kuondoa upendeleo na ziwe za mikatab aya miaka mitano mitano na umri wa kustaafu uwe miaka 60 tu.
 

ukisoma kijuujuu utafikiri kuna la maana hapo zaidi ya kurudia yale ambayo yamesemwa awali kwenye Ibara zilizotangulia kwenye nafasi zilizotajwa humu.

Yanayokosekana ni pamoja na yafuatayo:-

a) Ajira za umma zitapatikana kwa utaratibu wa uwazi, shirikishi na wenye ushindani kwa wale wote wenye sifa stahiki.

b) Ajira za utumishi wa umma zitakuwa ni za mikataba ili kuongezea uwajibikaji na tija katika kuzitekeleza.

c) Ajira za utumishi wa umma zitakoma ufikapo miaka 60 ili kutoa mwanya kwa vijana nao kushiriki katika kuchangia maendeleo ya nchi yao kupitia utumishi tajwa.

d) Hapatakuwepo malipo ya pensheni kwa watumishi wa umma ambao baada ya kumaliza ajira moja wakapata nyingine hadi pale watakapokuwa wamestaafu kabisa katika utumishi tajwa.

e) vigezo vya umri na jinsia havitatumika katika kuajiri au kubagua watumishi wa umma ila sifa na wweledi ya wahusika tu.

f) Pesa za umma kamwe hazitatumika katika kulipia huduma za afya nje ya nchi ili kuimarisha huduma za afya hapa nchini.

g) Peasa za umma kamwe hazitatumika kugharimia huduma za elimu nje ya nchi kwa elimu mbayo inaweza kupatikana hapa nchini ili kuimarisha huduma tajwa hapa nchini.
 

Jamii ishirikishwe kwenye hili kikamilifu kama nilivyoshauri awali.
 

Hii Ibara ya ndogo ya nne hadi nimeiwekea rangi nyekundu inathibitisha jinsi hii tume ya warioba ni tume ya dola.

Huku katiba inasema hakuna ubaguzi sasa kuibagua nafasi ya Uraisi na kuwanyima wapigakura kudai haki yao ya msingi na ya kikatiba ya kuhakikisha kura yao haipotei mbona inaminywa?

USHAURI:

Ibara ndogo tajwa irekebishwe na wapigakura wanayo haki ya kuhoji matokeo yoyote yale ambayo walishiriki katika kupigakura badala ya chaguzi za Uraisi kuziweka rtehani ya mikono ya wagombea ambao wanaweza kutufanyia ufisadi wa kutisha na kutoenda ahakamani baada ya pochi kujazwa minoti.

Na jingine kwanini tuwaamini wao wakati haki ni za kila raia wote?
 

Tume huru ya uchaguzi ni pamoja kuwa na mfuko wake wa fedha kama Bunge au mahakama

Pili kutotegemea serikali za mitaa katika kufanya kazi zake bali kuajiri watumishi wake ambao watasimamia chaguzi zake.

tatu, tume huru siyo jina tu bali kukaa mbali na majaji katika uteuzi wake.

nne, dhamana ya kuteua tume huru iachiwe kamati ya bunge inayohusika na ajira za watumishi serikalini kwa maana ya uhakiki na kuzithibitisha. Mahakama y Rufaa ilikwisha kusema dhamana ya usimamizi wa chaguzi zetu upo Bungeni sasa Jajji mkuu na wengineo wanatoka wapi kama siyo kuiharamisha tume husika?
 

Majaji hawana sababu ya kuwa wahimili wa chaguzi bali kazi yao ni kuchunguza malalamiko kama yatajitokeza. Hivyo jaji Mkuu na wenzie waondolewe.

Kamati ya Bunge ya uteuzi chini ya uenyekiti wa Spika wake ndiyo ifanye shughuli hii kwa kuwashirikisha maspika na manaibu wao wa mabunge ya Tanganyika na Zanzibar.
 

ukomo wa madaraka uliowekwa hapa ni sahihi na ulipaswa ufuatwe na nyadhifa zote za utumishi wa umma. Badala ya kubaguana kama majaji eti hadi wadunde sabini na kuna CAG kipindi kimoja cha miaka 7. Kuna uhaja wa wote kuwekewa mazingira sawa ya ukomo wa utumishi wa umma kuondoa ubaguzi ambao utajenga hisia za ukubwa na utwana, n.k.
 

Tume ionekana mbele ya jamii kuwa ni huru siyo jina pekee bali Katiba kutamka bayana ya kuwa watumishi wa umma kwenye serikali kuu au za mitaa kamwe hawaruhisiwi kushiriki katika shughuli za Tume. Tume itaajiri watumishi wake ambao watafanya kazi zake.

Suala la usajili wa wapigakura linatakiwa kuwa la kudumu na endelevu badala ya kushtukiza na lenya muda kiduchu kwa minajili ya kuwazuia wapigakura vijana kuchagua viongozi wawatakao.

Tatu, tume ya uchaguzi kama vile Bunge, Mahakama iwe na kasma yake na mgawo wake uwe na asilimia inayofahamika ya mapato yote.

Haya ni baadhi tu ya msharti ya kuhakikisha tume kweli ni huru siyo ubabaishaji wa kuzuga wapigakura kwa kulemba jina huku ndani hakuna la maana ambalo limebadilika.
 

Uteuzi wa Raisi wa maafisa tajwa ufanyike baada ya Tume ya uteuzi kumsaili na kumpendekeza kutokana na utaratibu ambao ni wazi, huru, shirikishi, na shindani.
 
Two conflicting decisions of the courts lent different perspectives over the jurisdiction of the Courts to resolve presidential election disputes. Paradoxically the decision of the lower Court- that is the High Court- was the one given a higher precedence mainly because it involved the political bigwigs in the opposition - Mrema Augustine among others- while the Court of Appeal decision on Walid Kabourou was not given the respect it truly deserved.

Read for yourself the relevant aspects of those two decision and decide for yourself:-


 

My point is CDM were legally wrong not to pursue their presidential election dispute of 2010 in our courts based on the current constitutional setup based on the findings of the Appeals Court in the Walid Kabourou case where the Court established beyond reasonable doubt that if the electoral Commission conducts an election without following the due process of the electoral law that conduct will be unconstitutional and the High Court has judicial power and jurisdiction to intervene when called to do so.
 
WARIOBA COMMISSION SCHEMES FOR ‘BUSINESS AS USUAL".


The legislative mischief behind the on-going constitutional amending process is unconstitutional because an ordinary act of the House cannot upset the prevailing constitutional order which has its own strict provisions for amendments.


At the moment the status quo; irrespective of pretentious ideological differences, is in total tandem that political expediency should topple legal harness! Despite the genuine quest for refurbishing our constitutional order but our Augusta House has set in motion a dangerous precedent which one day will leave us squirming for restoration of constitutional supremacy in a manner that will unleash chaos and pain to all of us.


After the House has tossed out of the window the constitutional imperatives behind a binding constitutional amending process then everything thereafter was unconstitutional leaving us in both moral and legal limbo of whether should the political ends; however desirable they might be to our leaders, triumph over the legal means already in place?


Whether it was the rulers of the day or those pretenders determined to replace them a promise of a morsel of bread and a piece of silver were sufficient to cajole them into political union of convenience at our collective peril!


Spilling out of this unconstitutional mess, few legal and political experts contemplate the status quo has sufficient moral and legal leverage to drive this process in a manner that "the led" and "their leaders" will arrive at a social contract that accommodates both of them.


Even though the Warioba draft constitution skimpily acknowledges historical fact of the existence of Tanganyika but they speedily succumb to past political denials whereby being a Tanganyika is sinful! Any nation which denies of her historical reality never prospers and one has a genuine justification querying the Warioba commission whether at heart they wish this nation well! The notion of "Mainland Tanzania" which they are tamping upon us lacks literal or legal counsel. Unless there is Tanzanian Isles there can never be Mainland Tanzania and knowing the latter is a political taboo then equal treatment before the law demands even the former semantics be the taboo too.


Again how do we christen ourselves mainlanders while we brandish a long maiden beach in our enviable list of dearest possessions? If Zanzibar is not a mainland because it is marooned by the sea then Tanganyika cannot also be called mainland because it owns large swathes of sea beaches. It is ridiculous; for instance, for anyone to name Kenya a mainland knowing it has a sea of its own just like Zanzibar does.



Proposals of discriminating men and women, for the purposes and intents of appeasing our colonial masters, that Tanzanian women are "politically liberated" smacks of hypocrisy and self-indulgence. The proposal romancing us to a fifty-fifty gender quota system is based on law enforcement and not voters' preferences! In every way, it is a feint acknowledgement that women in Tanzania will never compete with men in equal footing something which is counterproductive and takes away most gains our women have secured for themselves in our post-independence history of struggling for respect and inclusion.

The easiest way out of this constitutional maze was a constitutional imposition upon political parties to ensure a third of their nominees to any public position in aggregate form accommodate either of the gender, and that legal effort would have gone a long way to secure some decency of gender parity while permitting voters to determine the composition of their leaders at the ballot box and not from disenfranchisement of voters through electoral infringements laced in the law which may excel in catalyzing voter apathy, a pestilence now threatening to derail our democratic aspirations.


Another parameter not considered by the Warioba commission is the gerrymandering they are proposing to accommodate the presumed "women empowerment" which comes at a huge cost to accentuating marginalization of local communities with inadequate tribal math. The larger the constituents tend to be the more political leverage larger ethnicities will wield and smaller tribes will be left to fend for crumbs. Again this is another factor which fortifies voter apathy when marginalized communities feel even more marginalized following this new constitutional order being approved.

The successful candidates will hail from larger communities defrauding the smaller communities and in the process offering every excuse to the victims of marginalization not to turn up at the ballot box because of the perceived disempowerment. What we need is expansion of democratic orbit via having 70 constituents being subjected to one constituent touting one MP rather than a half of those constituents to accommodate gender delusions.



Appointments of MPs with disabilities ought to be left upon political parties and a formula for selection be based on total national vote ratio garnered and the president, surely, has no business meddling on the independence of the House.


While there was flimsy appearance of public service values being embedded in the draft, however, the real stimuli behind official graft, tribalism, nepotism, cronyism, and, religious and gender acrimony were left to cater for themselves! Unless public service values proffer equal treatments to all positions of the same status, imposes transparency, competition, inclusion and public participation in vetting process to all public dockets this draft is not worthy of the ink it was written upon. Issues of performance benchmarks were not considered, at all! All public servants must be subjected to a thorough short term contractual obligations that are renewable after the public has also has its say on performance.
It is unthinkable to allow judges to retire at 70 while the rest of public service is left at 60 and those judges are not subjected to a rigorous public participatory competition anchored in a parliamentary vetting process and not even those judges being hemmed under short term contracts of not exceeding five years.

The daunting question remains where is the performance benchmark for judges if backlog cases have to be vitiated? In the same breath, the judicial commission that hires judges ought to be obtained from a democratic process within the stakeholders which are judges depending on the Bench level from the High Court to the Supreme one, lawyers and the civil society as representatives of non-governmental interests. The inclusion of two professors there is illegal representation. Whose interests do the dons cater if not appeasing Prof. Kabudi who is a bellwether of this Warioba commission on legal matters?

The draft was supposed to find ways to include in the judicial service commission members of the public who suffer most at venal judicial services and non-governmental bodies could have easily and justifiably handed over that locus standi. Please limit the number of two members to each of the representation of the said stakeholders and accommodate gender parity, as well there.



Similarly, public funds geared for educational and medical treatments abroad ought to be outlawed if we ever aspire to improve our pathetic educational and health services. Why should policy makers be sheltered from the mistakes and insensitivities they show to our public service and not be accountable through compelling them to use them just like any other citizens? Then there is an issue of proliferation of widening of emoluments gaps. We need a constitutional office that will adjust emoluments to all public servants from the president to the cleaner to ensure the extant pay injustices are eroded and we bring back sanity, public loyalty and hard-work to the public service culture. We cannot allow ordinary acts of parliament to discriminate national leaders from other public servants in pension plans.

The Warioba commission thinks by sheltering the office of president through the consolidated fund will justify paying our presidential retirees through the nose because not even the House has been given powers to rein on this coffer! The basis of equity in emoluments is based upon team work values and that no one can pull off the betterment of public services on his own and mystifying the office of the president is part of the problem and not the solution. Public service retirees should not earn any pension if they secure permanent public service employment. At the moment we have an ex-Premier and an ex- House Speaker who dabble in the House pocketing a salary and a pension at the same time! This daylight robbery of public funds should end with this constitutional order.


On the impeachment process, the draft has failed to take a critical look at the principles of natural justice. First and foremost, the judicial encroachment on parliamentary impeachment process offends the independence of the House. Hence, that judicial fracas should be vitiated. The Chief Justice has no business interfering with impeachment process once it has been invoked. The role of the Supreme Court comes handy if the prosecuted president feels his constitutional rights to a fair hearing have been infringed and takes his legal anguish to the Supreme Court. A lower House of either Tanganyika or Zanzibar ought to prosecute the president and if more than fifty percent of votes in that House are secured the president stays impeached and must vacate temporarily the office pending the vote of the whole Union House where a simple majority should be sufficient to end his employment services.

The Warioba commission has raised the bar of impeachment from two-third to three quarters! The message there is amply laud and clear that the institution of presidency has lost all pretense to legitimacy now it needs the constitution to lend to it that right to rule! For a president who can come to office on simple majority he should also vacate the office on the same simple majority, and that will rebuild our pillars of accountability which are lacking in our constitutional order.



On similar countenance, one House cannot and should not play the roles of a prosecutor, investigator, a witness and a judge all rolled into one sleeve. There is a need to apportion impeachment powers to lower Houses; namely, of Tanganyika or Zanzibar. Either of the lower House can initiate impeachment proceedings and play the role of an investigation and prosecuting committee, and if that House approves the impeachment proceedings in a simple majority vote then the Union House may vote either to uphold or to rescind the impeachment intent from that lower House by the same simple majority vote. Before voting, relevant Houses must be given an opportunity to debate thoroughly on issues leveled against the president, and (s)he too be given an opportunity to address the Houses before the voting takes place.


On the electoral body, it defies both logic and commonsense that the will of the people is vested to an appointment committee that is not directly accountable to voters! That is preposterous, to say the least. Only the Union House has been vested with the vanguard and guardianship obligations to the will of Tanzanian voters. Hence, a relevant committee ought to advertise all positions of the electoral commissioners, shortlist them and interview them while encouraging public participation in a form of affidavits and where relevant physical appearance of the accused upon establishment of serious adverse allegations. After the committee has approved the names of the nominees then the report is sent to House speaker where full debate is carried out and secret voting takes place for ratification.

Those nominees who garner more than fifty percent their names are taken to the president for official appointment. Chief Justices have no legal mandate to encroach on parliamentary powers and the electoral body will be seen and perceived truly independent if no central or local government official hibernates in it during elections as transient electoral officers. Conflict of interests between the electoral body and the civil servants compels us to debar the civil servants from having a final say to our elections or the renaming of the electoral body will not serve the purposes of muffling our voices of suspected rigged elections.
 
mageuzi ya polisi ambayo yamo kwenye rasimu ya katiba yanasisitiza kulinda mfumo uliopo na dhana nzima ya polisi jamii wala haikujumuishwa kama ambavyo yatakikana. Uwajibikaji wa polisi kwenye jamii ndiyo maana sahihi ya polisi jamii na wala sivyo kama ambavyo kwenye Rasimu ilivyowekwa ambapo polisi wataendelea kuwasikiliza watawala kwa kuwa ndiyo teuzi zao zategemea badala ya raia ambao wametengwa kwenye teuzi zao. Hivyo kwa vile uwajibikaji siyo kwa wananchi bali kwa watawala tusitegemee mabadiliko yoyote yale kwenye utendaji wa jeshi la polisi hadi pale teuzi hizo zitakapohusisha raia na kukamilisha kabisa dhana nzima ya polisi jamii ambayo ndiyo itatuondolea kero nyingi hususani za kubambikiziwa kesi, mauaji ya kudhamiria yanayofanywa na jeshi la polisi na dhuluma nyinginezo kama ushiriki wa jshi la polisi kwenye biashara haramu za madawa ya kulevya, magendo na wizi wa kutumia silaha ambapo polisi wamekuwa wakishukiwa...........mara kwa mara kuwa ndiyo vinara wa hizo dhuluma dhidi ya raia.
 
mkutano wa jana wa vyama vya upinzani ulikuwa ni usanii mtupu. Yawaje waliafiki kuingizwa mjini na kushiriki kwenye tume ya warioba huku wakijua ni batili walipokula wakasaza sasa wadai sheria nzima ya mchakato wa marekebisho ya katiba siyo shirikishi?

Kwanza waombe msamaha kwa kuturubuni na mengineyo yatafuatia baada ya hapo.........
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…